Lesson Report:
Title
Defining the State: From Symbols to a Five-Part Checklist
In this session, students shifted from opinion-based political discussion to an analytical approach focused on defining “the state� and distinguishing it from other powerful organizations. Through guided activities and a comparative case (Kyrgyz Republic vs. AUCA), the class built and applied a five-part checklist for statehood and practiced objective reasoning using real and hypothetical cases (e.g., “Is Google a state?�).
Attendance
– Absent (explicitly mentioned): 0
– Notes: Instructor estimated ~50–60 present; attendance noted as higher than last week.
Topics Covered (chronological)
– Opening and course pivot: From normative to analytical
– Return to in-person instruction acknowledged; appreciation for patience with Zoom.
– Objective for the day: understand what a state is (and is not), without moral/normative judgments.
– Methodological shift: set aside opinions and evaluate concepts using analytical criteria.
– Partner warm-up: Reading symbols of the state (banknote, passport, police officer)
– Instructions: Find a partner; list what the three objects represent, what they have in common, and the abstract ideas that link them.
– Elicited associations (selected): state, power, rules, government, structure, culture, institutions, history, economics, sovereignty, law, freedom, order, independence, citizenship, rights, corruption, business, individuality.
– Abstract ideas surfaced: control, security, justice, authority, social construct, sovereignty, regime, development, “illusion of cohesion.â€�
– Debrief: These artifacts/agents are visible manifestations of an otherwise abstract entity—the state.
– The state as abstraction: Visualizing the Kyrgyz Republic
– Prompt: Close your eyes—what images represent the Kyrgyz Republic?
– Student imagery: mountains, nature, tunduk, animals, agriculture, national outline on a map.
– Takeaway: We visualize territory and symbols, but the “stateâ€� itself is an abstract organizing authority perceived through its outputs (documents, uniforms, currencies) and institutions.
– Comparative analysis: Why AUCA is not a state (vs. Kyrgyz Republic)
– Guiding question: What can Kyrgyzstan do that AUCA cannot? What’s missing at AUCA?
– Citizenship and documents:
– Kyrgyzstan issues passports implying nationality and reciprocal recognition; AUCA ID ≠passport/citizenship.
– Recognition and external relations:
– States recognize other states; participation in international organizations (e.g., UN) evidences recognition.
– No country recognizes AUCA as a state; accreditation ≠state recognition.
– Money and economic sovereignty:
– Kyrgyzstan’s currency is state-issued; AUCA cannot print legal tender.
– Law-making vs. enforcement:
– Both issue rules, but only the state claims and wields the monopoly on legitimate force.
– AUCA can regulate internally but cannot lawfully imprison/compel through force; the state can (police, courts, prisons).
– Borders and movement:
– States control entry/exit with visas/stamps; AUCA campus access is comparatively open and does not require border documentation.
– Military and coercive apparatus:
– States maintain armed forces/security services; AUCA has no military.
– “Public vs. privateâ€�:
– Class probed the distinction; serving members’ interests occurs in both, but public authority with final say is unique to the state.
– Regime features and holidays:
– Parliament/democracy/holidays are not necessary conditions of statehood; dictatorships can be states—regime type ≠statehood.
– Core lecture: The five-part checklist of statehood (how to test “is it a state?â€�)
– Territory: Defined geographic space the entity claims as its own.
– Population: People residing in/affiliated with the entity who identify as belonging to it (citizens/subjects).
– International recognition: Other states acknowledge it as a state (degree/threshold to be discussed further).
– Sovereignty/independence: Supreme authority within territory; no higher power dictates its internal decisions.
– Monopoly on the legitimate use of force: Exclusive claim to enact and enforce binding rules through police/military/coercion.
– Clarifications:
– “Government,â€� “parliament,â€� or “form of regimeâ€� are not themselves criteria for statehood.
– Military is an instrument of the monopoly of force, not a separate criterion.
– International recognition is conceptually distinct from mere organizational accreditation or business partnerships.
– Application activity: Is Google a state?
– Instructions: In pairs, evaluate Google against the five-part checklist; answer yes/no for each criterion with brief justifications.
– Purpose: Practice separating powerful non-state organizations from states by systematically applying the analytical test.
Actionable Items
– Before next class (urgent)
– Share a one-page handout/slide of the five-part statehood checklist with concise definitions.
– Provide the promised explanation of why “governmentâ€� is not on the checklist and how “stateâ€� differs from “governmentâ€� and “regime.â€�
– Clarify whether the partner exercise (“Is Google a state?â€�) will be submitted or just for in-class practice.
– Next session planning
– Revisit edge cases and thresholds for international recognition (e.g., de facto vs. de jure recognition, Montevideo Convention, disputed/partially recognized states).
– Address student prompts explicitly: dictatorship vs. democracy and statehood; North Korea as a state despite regime type; UN membership vs. recognition.
– Prepare brief case studies to test the checklist (e.g., Kosovo, Taiwan, Somaliland, Vatican City).
– Logistics/tech
– Explore a microphone/amp system due to class size and room acoustics.
– Consider a quick partner-matching protocol for large sessions (pre-assigned pairs or numbered grouping).
– Recordkeeping/assessment
– Remind students that today’s definitions/criteria will be assessed later; consider posting sample short-answer prompts applying the checklist.
– No explicit homework was assigned in-session; if desired, assign short readings (e.g., Weber on the monopoly of legitimate force; the Montevideo Convention) and announce via LMS.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The transcript shows only in-class partner tasks and note-taking prompts (e.g., “find a partner,� “write it in your notebooks,� and “go down this five-point checklist…with your partner�) with no mention of any assignment to complete after class, submission instructions, or due dates.